Every decade seems to have a word or buzz-phrase that defines it: the eighties were 'post-modern'; the nineties, 'irreverent', and the noughties, in my opinion were about the search for (the) 'experience' (specifically, the consumer experience). As a result of these decade-long dictional distillations, many other terms jockey for pole position along the way, destined to either rise for the top or slumber just under as also-rans. Over the last few years in media, the term 'brand' has slipped into common use, and as a consequence is evidently no longer a dirty word. We are now, it would seem, free to use it without fear of everyone in the room pulling a scene reminiscent of The Thick Of It, and balling us out, bursting into laughter, or blowing us out with a collective sharp sucking in of shocked air.

Once upon a time, to talk about the brand was herecy; to overlook or relegate the artistic merits of the production in hand, in favour of the notion that people are engaging (or "experiencing") what you put out for reasons other than because you're a genius in this moment. We don't build brands around here, we do beauty. Branding is done two floors down, culturally closer to Old Nick's residence. Now, however, thanks to boardroom seep words are ever more a trend, the lucky ones get to buzz around energetically for a while. Recent examples of word revivals-through-revision include the super-charging of otherwise healthy, active words via the post-fix of 'isation'; dropping 'cogent' into sentences to appear more serious and better informed; and now, the opportunity to appear more media-savvy than most, showing in one word that you know how shallow it all is, but work in the industry anyway, because it's more fun than tele-marketing: 'brand'.

On a jovial note, the thin end of the wedge may have come with the confectionery spin-off explosion of the last decade, multiplying a singular bar, biscuit or lolly up and into a highly commercial cross-palette, countrywide brand "experience" feeding frenzy; but more likely it was the internet, which has done more, through its eventual purpose as a marketing tool, to merge pure entertainment and primary PR machinations into one homogenized form of content. Subsequently, brand has become a buzzword of our times; people now understand it as a term in a way that they were blind to it before, like the Egyptians supposedly were to the colour blue - it was there in the background, but not as important as what was going on closer to hand. Now it is key in the root-map to understanding how an item of media is working, allows the curious to retrace in a step back to the purpose of whatever endeavor is of the moment.

I haven't read the Times piece, but I would imagine, underneath it all, the articles actual motivation was more about the author indulging himself in the freedom of using the actual word "brand" by saying it as many times as is humanly possible before it goes out of fashion again.

... of course we're always buying into a "brand" and more importantly the "brand values."

Sugababes are the musical example du jour because they are now very obviously a brand name rather than 3 specific girl singers, but it's interesting that the article mentions Dire Straits in passing without making the connection that Mark Knopfler as a solo artist only does middling business, but if he toured/recorded as Dire Straits he could sell out any arena in the world (see also: Sting.)

For me it's not about the brand but the band. I'm not sure if the reformed Sensational Alex Harvey Band are still going but, despite use of the SAHB logo, there was no way I would consider going to see them as Alex has been dead for some 30 years. The band was about him, not an impersonator.
I'd never considered going to see any of those various versions of The Drifters that used to tour back in the 70s. It seemed that if you'd ever been in the same town as one of the former members you were now qualified to sing under that band name.
Dire Straits are a strange case, being essentially Mark Knopfler with anonymous musicians behind him, but as MM notes as a solo artist he's not doing particularly big business. I daresay when he gigs there is a selection of DS songs included.

It's the only way to build on what you have and get noticed. Is that so bad?